IBP575_03

MONITORING PIPELINE MOVEMENT AND ITS EFFECT ON PIPE

INTEGRITY USING INERTIAL/CALIPER IN-LINE INSPECTION
Jaroslaw A. Czyz1 , Sergio E. Wainselboin2

12

Copyright 2003, Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo e Gás - IBP

Este Trabalho Técnico foi preparado para apresentação na Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2003, realizado no período de 22 a 24 de Outubro
de 2003, no Rio de Janeiro. Este Trabalho Técnico foi selecionado para apresentação pela Comissão Técnica do Evento, seguindo as informações
contidas na sinopse submetida pelo(s) autor(es). O conteúdo do Trabalho Técnico, como apresentado, não foi revisado pelo IBP. Os organizadores
não irão traduzir ou corrigir os textos recebidos. O material conforme, apresentado, não necessariamente reflete as opiniões do Instituto Brasileiro de
Petróleo e Gás, Sócios e Representantes. É de conhecimento e aprovação do(s) autor(es) que este Trabalho Técnico seja publicado nos Anais da Rio
Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2003.

Abstract

Pipeline movement is caused by a variety of sources, such as landslides, earthquakes, overburden,

field subsidence, permafrost thaw or heave, riverbed erosion, seabed scouring, fishing trawlers, ship
anchors, construction in the pipeline right of way, temperature and pressure increase or cycles. It
poses a threat to pipeline integrity as it can lead to excessive strain in the pipe, pipeline buckling, as
well as development of severe pipe wall deformations. For the above reasons it is important to
monitor both the pipeline movement and the deformations caused by it. This can be accurately and
efficiently achieved by performing in-line inspections with the Geopig®. The inertial navigation
system on board the tool allows for accurate 3-D measurements of the pipe centerline position and
curvature that is used for calculation of the bending strain and provides high accuracy pipeline
geometry data for FEM modelling and analysis. Comparison of two surveys at different times is
used for precise monitoring of the pipeline movement and bending strain changes between the runs.
The Geopig also records caliper measurements of the pipe wall shape, which allows for detection of
wrinkles and other pipe anomalies that develop as the result of the pipeline displacement. This
paper demonstrates the advantages of inertial/caliper survey for monitoring and prevention of
pipeline movement for a variety of applications. It presents examples of detected wrinkles, buckles
and large strains induced by pipeline movement that required mitigation to avert pipeline failure. It
shows a history of monitoring pipeline strain, movement and wall deformations over years.

Introduction

Pipeline movement poses a potential threat to pipeline integrity as it can lead to excessive strain in
the pipe, severe pipe wall deformations as well as fatigue that can cause pipe rupture. The Geopig
has been successfully used for monitoring pipeline movement for over 14 years in order to prevent
pipeline failures [1-6]. Some lines in geotechnically unstable areas have been monitored on a
regular basis, with intervals ranging from twice a year to once in several years, depending on the
observed rate of movement, pipeline strain level and severity of pipewall deformations found during
the surveys. This paper demonstrates advantages of using Geopig for monitoring pipeline condition
and movement, and presents several examples of detected problems threatening pipeline integrity. It
shows survey results illustrating pipeline displacement and deformation due to a variety of sources.

1
Ph.D., Geometry Analysis Team Leader, BJ Pipeline Inspection Services, Calgary, Canada
2
MBA, Mechanical Engineer, Regional Sales Engineer South America, BJ Services do Brasil Ltda.
1
 IBP575_03

1. Effect of Pipeline Movement on Pipe Integrity

The sources of pipeline movement can be classified into the following three groups:
• Soil instability which comprises landslides, earthquakes, permafrost thaw, frost heave,
production field subsidence, excessive overburden, seabed scouring, riverbed erosion and
insufficient support in soft soil
• Operational temperature and pressure increase or cycles
• External interference such as collision with construction equipment, ship anchors, fishing
gear, as well as long term effect of a new construction in the pipeline right of way, e.g.
roads, bridges, dykes, berms, etc.

Pipeline movement can lead to severe pipe wall deformations, excessive strain and fatigue. It
redistributes the axial force along the pipe, increasing tension in some locations and compression in
others. It can also raise the pipeline curvature, which induces the tensile strain in half of the pipe
cross-section, and the compressive strain in the other half. The excessive tensile strain can lead to
pipeline rupture, particularly at girth welds. The large compressive strain may cause buckling
(upheaval, lateral or localized pipewall buckling), usually accompanied by formation of wrinkles
that can rupture due to material fatigue or severe yielding.

The main sources of upheaval buckling are elevated operational temperature and pressure, frost
heave, out-of-straightness imperfections (induced during construction or pipeline movement),
excessive axial compression force due to soil movement, insufficient backfill or inadequate support
in unstable soil. It can be prevented by accurate as-built survey of pipeline curvature and depth of
cover that allows for planning remedial action using concrete mattresses, anchors, additional
backfill and rock dump. This has to be taken into account particularly during the design and
construction of high temperature buried pipelines. Unburied pipelines, e.g. laid on a seabed, are
more prone to lateral buckling, collision with fishing gear and ship anchors, as well as free
spanning.

The seabed scouring and riverbed erosion leads to free spanning of originally buried lines as well. It
may cause a fatigue failure due to vortex shedding induced oscillations in the presence of strong
river or seabed currents such as gulf streams or tidal movements. Fatigue may also be caused by
cyclic temperature and pressure loading, especially if pipewall geometric imperfections were
induced during the construction or operation, e.g. ripples in field bends.

2. Measurement of Pipeline Geometry and Movement with Geopig

The previous section indicated how important for maintaining the pipe integrity is monitoring both
the pipeline movement and the deformations caused by it. This can be accurately and efficiently
achieved by performing an in-line inspection with the Geopig, which is equipped with inertial
navigation system, mechanical callipers, odometers and temperature and pressure sensors. The
inertial and calliper sensors provide complimentary data describing complete pipeline geometry,
including the shape and curvature of the pipe centreline as well as pipe wall shape and
deformations. The inertial navigation system allows for accurate 3-D measurements of the pipe
centerline position and curvature that is used for calculation of the bending strain. Comparison of
two Geopig runs at different times is used for precise monitoring of the pipeline movement and

2
 IBP575_03

bending strain changes between the runs. The multiple surveys performed in SNAM NPS 26 gas
line in 1994 [6] proved the high accuracy of pipeline bending strain and displacement
measurements with this technology.

The inertial survey data is supplemented with caliper measurements of the pipe internal diameter
and pipewall shape. This allows for detection of wrinkles and other pipe anomalies that develop as a
result of pipeline displacement. More detailed Geopig description and the method of bending strain
calculation based on the inertial data can be found in [7-9].

The Geopig has been successfully used for monitoring pipeline movement for over 14 years. Some
pipelines crossing geotechnically unstable areas have been surveyed on a regular basis, with
intervals ranging from twice a year to once in several years, depending on the observed rate of
movement, bending strain level and severity of pipewall deformations found during the surveys.

The history of using Geopig for surveying the Enbridge’s NPS12 oil line from Norman Wells to
Wrigley, in particular monitoring the curvature and development of wrinkles is documented in
[1,2]. The application of Geopig for monitoring the settlement of TransAlaskan NPS48 oil line is
described in [3, 4]. Using Geopig for measuring pipeline out of straightness and depth of cover in
order to prevent upheaval buckling is discussed in [10]. All those papers confirmed exceptional
quality and accuracy of the pipeline geometry data provided by the combined inertial and calliper
sensors, as verified by field measurements as well as FEM models.

4. Pipeline Displacement and Deformations Detected by Geopig Surveys

This section presents examples of data collected during inertial and calliper surveys performed for
the purpose of monitoring pipeline movement and deformations for a variety of applications. It
includes digital images produced with BJ display software Geodisplay® and VectraView® that
show detected pipeline anomalies, such as wrinkles, buckles and large strains, which resulted from a
pipeline movement and required mitigation to avert pipeline failure. It also presents a history of
monitoring a progressive pipeline movement and strain increase over years. Based on those
examples the advantage of complementary information from the callipers and inertial data is
evident.

The first example show the results of inertial survey of NPS 30 gas line over the span of 7 years.
The line crosses mountainous regions with known slope instability problems. Several slopes
suspected of movement had been monitored using traditional methods such as aerial and surface
surveillance, aerial photo interpretation, test pits, slope indicators and subsurface water pressure
sensors. However, due large number of slopes and difficulties in predicting which areas may be
susceptible to landslides, it was economically and technically impractical to instrument and monitor
all the slopes crossed by the pipeline. Therefore the Geopig was used to detect unknown areas of
slope instability. In one of the detected areas the inertial survey indicated a 1.7m horizontal
movement over a 500m section of line that induced large strains at the boundaries of the slide
region, including some girth welds. Fig. 1 shows the pipeline movement and strains in the upstream
boundary of the landslide. A geotechnical survey confirmed the inertial survey findings and this
section was excavated in order to relieve the strain. The calliper data nor the pipe examination
didn’t identify any significant pipe wall deformations in this area.

3
 IBP575_03

2002 Pipeline Plan

Stable soil Unstable soil

Northern edge of
1995 Pipeline
transverse landslide Plan

1995 Elevation

2002 Elevation

2002 Horizontal

1995 Horizontal Strain

1995 and 2002 Plan Difference

1995 and 2002 Horizontal Strain

Difference

F
Fig. 1. A 1.7 m pipeline horizontal displacement over 7 year period due to landslides

Fig. 2 shows the caliper measurements of 25mm outward wrinkle identified in another NPS 30 gas
line in the area of a landslide. The wrinkle developed just beside the girth weld. Its apex is located
at 12 o’clock position which is consistent with the inertial survey results that indicate that the
pipeline underwent subsidence. Fig. 3 shows that a 4 deg sagbend was induced over 5m section
producing a 1.8% strain in the vertical plane. The
horizontal component of strain was negligible.

Diameter Profile Wrinkle

Weld

Profile

Vertical Strain (%)

Fig. 2 Caliper measurements of wrinkle Fig. 3 Strain in area of wrinkle in NPS 30 line
developed in NPS 30 line in landslide area

4
 IBP575_03

Pipeline plan after earthquake

Fig. 4 shows the pipeline plan,
profile as well as horizontal strain,
Pipeline plan before earthquake displacement and strain difference
Profile for two runs between two surveys performed
over two year interval. A powerful
Horz. strain earthquake took place between the
for two runs
surveys resulting in 3m horizontal
movement of the pipeline.
Horz. movement However, due to significant soil
liquefaction and the fact that the
Horz. strain change displacement was distributed over
long distance no damage to the
pipe was found and the difference
in bending strain was not
Fig. 4 Pipeline horizontal movement and strain change in significant, i.e. less than 0.1% as
earthquake zone shown on Fig. 4.

Fig. 5 and 6 show the area of NPS20 buried offshore

pipeline impacted by a ship anchor. A 15 mm dent
was found in the caliper data as shown on Fig. 5.
Analysis of the inertial data indicated a 5 deg change
of azimuth that corresponded to 1% bending strain.
Based on accurate UTM coordinates obtained from
the inertial survey a team of divers was sent to that
location and found an anchor sunk in the seabed.
The pipeline was excavated and sleeved.

Fig. 5 Dent caused by anchor

Plan
Profile

Horizontal 1% bending
strain

5º change of
azimuth

Diameter Profile Dent

Welds

Fig. 6 Pipeline plan, profile, horizontal strain, azimuth and

internal diameter in the area of collision with anchor

5
 IBP575_03

Fig. 7 shows the data from two inspections

Run 2
of NPS 40 offshore gas line. The pipeline
Plan was designed to buckle horizontally under
Run 1
high pressure and operating temperature
(60o C higher than the ambient
Profile
temperature). The purpose of the Geopig
surveys was to measure the displacement
and change of pipeline bending strain in
Horizontal Strain (%) order to confirm that the pipeline
movement complied with the design
specifications and no excessive strains or
Vertical Strain (%)
pipewall deformations were induced. The
first run was performed in sea water and
Fig. 7. 12m horizontal displacement due to lateral the second one in gas under normal
buckling of offshore pipeline operating temperature and pressure. The
comparison of two surveys revealed
several locations of controlled horizontal buckles ranging in amplitude from 0.3m to 12 m. Also a
number of areas with small vertical movement due to seabed activities were identified. Fig. 7 shows
the location of the largest lateral displacement, i.e. 12m, which occurred over the distance of 300m
and induced the maximum of 0.2% bending strain.

Overlaid profile from two runs

Fig. 8 shows the inertial data from two
surveys of a free spanning section of NPS
24 offshore gas line. During an ROV
Span 1 survey large free spans (up to 500m long
Support Support and 6m above the seabed) were detected.
Also a damage to the concrete coating at
Overlaid vert. strain (%)
the supports at the boundaries of free
0.2% Strain spans was noticed. The Geopig was used
to establish the pipe condition including
Profile difference
the bending strain level and wall
between two runs 30 cm settlement deformations in order to determine if any
remedial action was required (e.g. lifting
the line with balloons) before starting the
Fig. 8. 30cm settlement of 500m long free span
stabilization of free spans with the rock
after rock dump
dump. The caliper data revealed no
significant pipe wall deformations in the areas of free spans. The inertial survey indicated that the
maximum bending strain level occurred at the support area and didn’t exceed 0.2%, as shown on
Fig. 8. The FEM analysis based on the inertial survey allowed for accurate calculation of the axial
force and the stress in the pipe wall. The analysis concluded that the pipeline was fit for service
provided the rock dump wouldn’t induce significant settlement. After the stabilization of spans with
rock dump another Geopig survey was performed and a maximum of 30cm pipeline settlement was
measured, which was within the predicted range. There was no noticeable change of strain due to
the settlement.

6
 IBP575_03

Fig. 9 and 10 show an upheaval

Fig. 9. 3-D inertial survey of upheaval buckle
buckle in NPS 8 gas line. The
pipeline buckled under elevated
operational temperature due to
insufficient backfill and lack of
proper constraints in a swamp area.
The buckle was initiated in the area

Profile of out-of-straightness imperfection,

i.e. high curvature due to overbend.
1m
As a result of buckling a high
28m
bending strain of 1.1% was induced
in the buckle apex and 1cm wrinkle
developed at the bottom half of the
pipe.
Vertical Strain: 1.13%
1.6% increase of
internal diameter

Weld

Fig. 10. Pipeline profile, vertical strain, pipe internal

diameter and girth weld location at upheaval buckle

5. Conclusions

The Geopig has been successfully used for monitoring pipeline movement for over 14 years. The
advanced mathematical modelling applied in data processing and filtering techniques developed
over years by BJ Pipeline Inspection Services have been used for a high accuracy geometry survey
as well as run-to-run strain and pipeline position comparison in order to detect and measure pipeline
displacement and deformations. The combined inertial and calliper sensors provide high accuracy
pipeline geometry data that allows for in depth analysis of pipeline condition. It also constitutes an
excellent input data for FEM modelling and fitness-for-purpose analysis. It has been used for
detecting the existing and potential problems threatening pipeline integrity, allowing for effective
prevention of pipeline failures.

Inertial and calliper in-line surveys proved to have several advantages over traditional methods of
monitoring pipeline movement, such as geotechnical surveillance or installation of strain gauges on
the pipe. The major benefit is a cost-effective collection of data for the entire line, not just pre-
selected areas of concern. The Geopig inspections revealed that the pipeline movement could occur
in the areas that were not identified by routine geotechnical patrols. The in-line inspection readily
collects data in the areas with a difficult access that promote pipeline movement and deformation,
such as swamp, jungle, seabed, river crossing or a large depth of cover. Another advantage is a
direct measurement of the cumulative effects of pipe movement on its integrity by accurate location
and sizing of the weakest points in the line in terms of pipe wall deformations and bending strains.

7
 IBP575_03

References
1. Wilkie S.A., Doblanko R.M., Fladager, S.J., “Northern Canadian pipeline deals with effect of
soil movement”, Oil and Gas Journal, May 2001
2. Yoosef-Ghodsi N., Cheng J.J.R., Murray D., Doblanko R., Wilkie S., “Analytical Simulation
and Field Measurements for a Wrinkle on the Norman Wells Pipeline”, International Pipeline
Conference of ASME, Calgary, Oct. 2000.
3. Hart J.D., Powell G.H., Hackney D., Zulfiquar N, “Geometry monitoring of the Trans-Alaska
pipeline”, 11-th International Conference on Cold Region Engineering, Anchorage, Alaska,
May 2002.
4. Cox M., Garrigus A., Walker W., Wade R.L., 1995. “Pipeline monitoring and remedial action
from inertial geometry surveys in buried pipelines”. Pipeline and Inspection Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, Feb. 1995.
5. Czyz J., Falk J., “Use of the Geopig for Prevention of Pipeline Failures in Environmentally
Sensitive Areas”, Pipeline Pigging, Integrity Assessment and Repair Conference, Houston, Feb.
2000.
6. Czyz J.A., Fraccaroli C., Sergeant A.P., “Measuring Pipeline Movement in Geotechnically
Unstable Areas Using An Inertial Geometry Pipeline Inspection Pig”, ASME 1-st International
Pipeline Conference, Calgary, June 1996.
7. Czyz J.A., Adams J.R., 1994. “Computations of pipeline-bending strains based on Geopig
measurements”. Pipeline Pigging and Integrity Monitoring Conference, Houston, Texas, Feb.
1994
8. Czyz J. A., Pettigrew C., Pino H., Gomez R.. “Multi-Pipeline Geographical Information System
Based on High Accuracy Inertial Surveys”, ASME 3-rd International Pipeline Conference,
Calgary, Oct. 2000.
9. Cole C., Czyz J. A., “In-line inertial surveys help avoid costly pipe line lowering”, Pipe Line
and Gas Industry, Vol. 84 No 10, Oct. 2001
10. Wendel S. Kirkvik R.H, Clouston S., Czyz J., “Pipeline Out Of Straightness And Depth Of
Burial Measurement Using an Inertial Geometry Intelligent Pig”, 23-rd Annual Offshore
Pipeline Technology Conference (OPT 2000), Oslo, Feb. 2000.